Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (44825)	1/12/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 186894

The article reviews patent apps for the year. You can see where Intel finished and where IBM finished. It tells you a lot about a companies technology. huh? bankrupt argument, Paul. I have a patent. It often means nothing. My Co didn't even give em any stock options or a raise, just a cool palque infront of people. Much REALLY valuable technology, such as how to yield 95% or higher, is never patented since people from AMD could read it and then know how it is done. regards Kirk out more Intel discussion at: suite101.com

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (44825)	1/12/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Paul,>>>The article reviews patent apps for the year. You can see where Intel finished and where IBM finished. It tells you a lot about a companies technology.<<< Nearly 48% of IBM's 1724 patents were software and network related. The balance (~827 patents) were awarded to an array of hardware related businesses that IBM is in: Small Business computers Mainframe computers Super computers Disk storage devices Server and workstations Semiconductors The number of patents cited were from work completed more than 2 years ago, before IBM reduced their R&D budget. Intels 407 patents were also awarded for work completed over two years ago when Intels R&D budget was smaller - Intel has also, I believe, announced increases in R&D spending. I guess what I'm trying to say is you have to compare apples to apples - otherwise it is kind of fruitless - if you know what I mean. Regards, Mary